Trick or Treatment—The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine (Electronic book text)

In light of such disappointing results, it seems bizarre that alternative treatments are touted as though they offer marvellous benefits. In fact, not only are such treatments unproven, but over and over again we have seen that alternative medicine is also potentially dangerous. Remember, chiropractors who manipulate the neck can cause a stroke, which can be fatal. Similarly, some herbs can cause adverse reactions or can interfere with conventional drugs, thereby leading to serious harm. Acupuncture practised by an expert is probably safe, but minor bleeding is common for many patients and more serious problems include infection from re-used needles and the puncturing of major organs. Even homeopathic remedies, which of course contain no active ingredient, can be dangerous if they delay or replace a more orthodox treatment. In fact, any ineffective alternative treatment jeopardizes the health of a patient if it replaces an effective conventional treatment. This problem was clearly demonstrated by the tragic death of a Dutch comedienne called Sylvia Millecam.

Millecam shot to fame in Holland when she starred in her own TV show in the 1990s. However, in 1999 her GP noticed a small lump in her breast. He referred her to a radiologist for more tests, but the results were inconclusive. Then, instead of visiting a surgeon for further investigation, she underwent electro-acupuncture. Even when it was absolutely clear that she had breast cancer, Millecam rejected conventional medicine and visited a total of twenty-eight alternative practitioners over the course of two years. The pointless treatments that she received included homeopathy, food supplements, cell-specific cancer treatment, salt therapy and psychic healing, and her diagnoses relied on bizarre techniques such as electromagnetic and vega testing. Gradually the cancer spread and Millecam was admitted to hospital in August 2001, but it was too late. She died four days later, aged forty-five. This is appalling: if Millecam’s breast cancer had been treated quickly, then she would probably still be alive. An expert medical panel looked into the case of Sylvia Millecam and concluded that she had received ‘unfounded methods of treatment’ and that her alternative therapists had denied her ‘a reasonable chance of recovery’ and caused her ‘unnecessary suffering’.

And, not only do alternative therapists offer us often ineffective and sometimes dangerous treatments, they also charge us heavily for these services and products. The issue of money is problematic at every level. Parents on a limited budget might waste money on alternative medicine in a misguided attempt to improve their child’s health. At the other end of the scale, national governments have much larger budgets, but these are also limited, and they also risk wasting money on alternative medicine in a similarly misguided attempt to improve the health of their nations.

Acupuncture sessions, chiropractic manipulations and homeopathic consultations can all cost upwards of £50 each and are often more than double this price. Other alternative therapists, such as spiritual healers, charge similar amounts for a session, and a full course of alternative treatment for an individual can cost hundreds or thousands of pounds. At the start of this chapter, the Prince of Wales quoted an annual UK spend of £1.6 billion in 2000, but even this is likely to be an underestimate. Surveys of the money spent on alternative medicine can give conflicting results, but the general trend has been inexorably upwards, and a recent extrapolation estimated that Britons currently spend £5 billion on alternative treatments — £4.5 billion spent by the public and the remaining £500 million being spent by the National Health Service. And, remember, the annual global spend on alternative medicine is estimated to be £40 billion.

One might argue that every individual has the right to spend money according to his or her own wishes, but if alternative practitioners are making unproven, disproven or vastly exaggerated claims, and if their treatments carry risks, then we are being swindled at the expense of our own good health.

In terms of UK government spending, the alternative lobby might defend the £500 million bill by pointing out that it represents less than 1 per cent of the National Health Service budget, but £500 million spent on unproven or disproven therapies could instead pay for 20,000 more nurses. Another way to grasp the impact of government spending on alternative medicine is to consider the recent refurbishment of the Royal Homoeopathic Hospital in London, which cost £20 million. The hospital is part of the University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which had to announce a deficit of £17.4 million at the end of 2005. In other words, the overspend could have been easily avoided if so much money had not been spent on refurbishing a hospital that practises and promotes a bogus form of medicine.